Unite dState s Departmen t o f th e Interio r

OFFIC E O F TH E SECRETAR Y Washington

, D C 2024 0

OC T 3 0 200 7

Doyl e Childers

. Directo r Missour i Departmen t

o f Natura l Resource s P.O

. Bo x 17 6 Jefferso n City

. Missour i 6510 2

Dear Mr

. Childers :

W e appreciat e th e opportunit y t o wor k closel y with th e Stat

e throug h th e initia l evaluation

, development

, an drevie w process

. Pleas e not e tha t onl y th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y (EPA ) ca n mak e afina l determinatio n regardin g th e document' s completenes s an dtherefor e it s abilit y t o receiv e Federal approva l fro mEPA.

A s outline di n alette r

t o eac h Slat e date dAugus t 1

, 2006

, th e FW S revie w focuse do n eigh t basi c conten t areas , whic h reflec t

prioritie s o f

th e Federa

l lan dmanagemen t

agencies

. W e hav e enclose dth e specifi c comment s associate dwil h eac h o f thes e conten t

areas

. I n general

, ou r revie w o f th e Stat e o f

Missouri' s draft

pla n indicate s anee d t o mor e completel y addres s th e lan d
managemen t

agenc y priorities

. However

, th e FW S Branc h o f Ai r Qualit y staff " stand s rcad \t o

wor k wit h yo u towar dresolutio n o f thes e issues

. W e as k

tha t furthe r consultation s tak e plac e with u s prio r

t o publi c releas e o f

th e draf t plan

. W e hav e enclose dacop y o f th e Augus t

1

. 2006

, letter fo r you r referenc e a s yo u consider th e concern s w e ar e raising

. W e loo k forwar dt o you r response , a s pe r

sectio n 4 0 CF R5 1,308(i)(3). Specifi c question s regardin g th e revie w o f an d consultatio n o n th e draf

t pla n ma y b e directe dt o Mr

. Ti mAllen

, Fis h an dWildlif e Servic e Branc h

o f Air Quality

, a

t (303 ) 914-3802. '

Again

, w e appreciat e th e opportunit y t o wor k closel y wit h th e Stat e o f Missour i an dcomplimen t yo u o n you r

har d work

an d dedicatio n t o significan t improvemen t

i n ou r Nation' s ai r

qualit yDoyl e Childers

. Director 2

value s an dvisibility

. Cooperativ e effort s suc h a s thes e ensur e that

, together

, w e wil l continu e t o mak e progres s towar dth e Clea n Ai r Act' s goal o f

natura l visibilit y condition s a t al l o f ou r mos t pristin e Nationa l Park s an dWildernes s Area s fo r futur e generations

. Sincerely

.

Assistan t Secretar y fo r

Fis h

an dWildlif e an dPark sU.S. Fish and Wildlife S ervice Comments Regarding Missouri Draft Regional Haze Rule State Implementation Plan

On August 23, 2007, the State of Missouri submitted a draft Regional Haze Rule State implementation plan (SIP), pursuant to the requi rements codified in federal rule at 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2), to the U.S. Department of the Inte rior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Subsequently, on September 19, 2007, the State subm itted a revised draft of its SIP, together with several appendices that had been in complete in the original package.

The air program staff of the FWS has conduc ted a substantive review of the Missouri draft plan, and provide the commen ts listed below. In these comments, all references to the Draft Missouri Regional Haze SIP (“Draft SIP”) refer to the September 19, 2007, submittal. Our concerns that are described belo w warrant additional consultation prior to public release of the Missouri Regional Haze Plan.

We look forward to your response as per section 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3), and would be willing to work with Missouri Department of Na tural Resources (MDNR) staff towards resolving the major issues discussed below. For further information, please contact Tim Allen, FWS Regional Haze lead at (303) 914-3802.

Overall Comment

The Fish & Wildlife Service ha s a significant concern that th e information provided in the State of Missouri’s Draft Region al Haze SIP fails to describe or address content elements required by the Regional Haze Rule. In reviewing the Missouri Draft SIP, the FWS has identified two very distinct issues that hamp er our ability to find and evaluate important information to be described by the State.

 The discussions of specific SIP elements are re-visited in several sections, often with contradictory or incorrect information. More robust explanations of specific topic areas are often included in non-related chap ters, thus complicating the review of the entire SIP.

 The draft SIP also relies on a pattern of referencing as an apparent substitute to presenting the State’s reasoning. Thes e references often point to lengthy and extremely technical documents produced by other organizations or consultants. Those technical references are neither intend ed to, nor do they proclaim a specific opinion. Deriving conclusions from th e technical information sources is the responsibility of each State in its Regional Haze SIP, and the reasoning for the conclusions must be explained. Although ou r office has participated in many of the same Regional Planning Organization functions and has experience with the referenced documents, we find it difficultto understand through these references how MDNR came to its own conclusions.

Specific examples of these two poin ts are further described below.As such, the FWS respectfully requests that th e State of Missouri reconsider the Draft SIP in its present form before release to the publ ic. We ask that the State review the eight elements identified by the Fish & Wildli fe Service letter (August 2006) and expand its discussion in the document regarding ho w MDNR approached, evaluated, and drew conclusions on these important rule elements.

In addition, it is our opinion that our concerns described below in items 14, 15, and 16 are deficiencies that are not consistent with the requirements of the Regional Haze Regulations and may warrant the SIP unapprovable.

The remaining comments provided here are orga nized according to the priorities that we presented in our August 1, 2006, letter. Many of the following comments will also provide direction towards building the narrative of the Draft SIP to satisfy the documentation deficiency noted above.

Baseline, Natural Conditions, Uniform Rate

1. Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of the Draft SIP discuss ba seline and natural visibility conditions for the Mingo and Hercules Glades Class I areas. The last paragraph on page 23 of the Draft SIP indicates that IMPROVE data for the Mingo mon itoring site was supplemented with data as the result of monitor failure. Recently, errors in the parameter calculations were discovered by CIRA, and new estimates for baseline and na tural conditions are available on both the IMPROVE and VIEWS websites. Also, please ve rify that all baseline and natural condition numbers match throughout the documents and stat e if these estimates were generated using the old or the new IMPROVE equation.

2. Section 5.1 of the Draft SIP describes the old and new IMPROVE equations in a way that is difficult to follow. MDNR should consider providing a summary of the equations and calculations necessary to evaluate baseline conditi ons and provide a specific description in an appendix. The IMPROVE committee website offers a more appropriate derivation and application description of the e quation that can be referenced. Also, please note that within this section the document makes reference to an internet “ftp” website (see page 19 of the Draft SIP). The link that is provided is to a site that is password pr otected, and thus not publicly available.

3. Please identify whether “Uniform Rate of R easonable Progress Glide Paths” presented in section 8.4 of the Draft SIP were produced using actual model output or the results of applying a relative reduction f actor. If these numbers were the result of a relative reduction, please provide a discussion of how they were ge nerated. In addition, these uniform rate of progress graphs include an a dditional line labeled “Method 1 Pr ediction,” but nowhere is the concept of “Method 1” explained.

4. Section 6.4 of the Draft SIP in troduces evidence that “high c oncentrations of ammonia are occurring ... with considerable regularity,” and that the am monia is likely coming from anthropogenic sources. But, in another porti on of the Draft SIP, s ection 9.2 indicates that ammonia was discarded from further consid eration due to the i nventory being “very uncertain” regarding anthropogenic contribution. Please discuss whether the observations

2cited in section 6.4 apply in Missouri, whethe r MDNR has investigated dates of 20% worst visibility that occur in winter, and how ammoni a emissions were considered in evaluating the reasonable progress goal. We are concerne d that MDNR perhaps should re-evaluate ammonia emission effects on visibility at the Mingo Wilderness, considering the high nature of measurements that ha ve potentially occurred.

Emission Inventories

5. Section 7 of the Draft SIP, titled “Emissi ons Inventory,” discusses the MO emission inventory, yet chapters occu rring later in the document include much more specific information on the region-wide emission invent ories utilized for the technical analyses supporting this SIP. MDNR should consider combining discussion of inventory to one chapter. This Chapter should identify and de scribe the differences between the various emissions scenarios that MDNR employed for its Regional Haze SIP analyses and decisions, including Base/Performance, Typical 2002, Base 2018, and Alternate 2018, emissions inventories.

6. The Draft SIP needs to commit to periodically review and update the future emission inventory projections used for Regional Haze de cision making. This can be addressed either in the Emission Inventory section, or in another appropriate locati on within the document (for instance, it could also f it within section 11, which discusses the long-term strategy for reaching reasonable progress goals, or section 12, which discusses comprehensive periodic plan revisions).

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 1

7. The Draft SIP discusses the status of the Doe Run-Glover facility as having “been placed in a care and maintenance” status since the BART component of the regional haze rule was finalized.” In a conference call withMDNR on September 25, 2007, we asked for clarification of what this stat ement means. We understand th e response to be that: the Doe Run-Glover facility has not b een operational for approximately four years, although it still holds an active permit that does authorize it to op erate; that if the f acility is non-operational for a period of five consecutive years (in th is case, that threshold will be passed in approximately November 2008), State regulations re quire the facility to reapply for a new air quality construction and operati on permit as if it were a ne w source; that MDNR fully expects that this facili ty will not become operational before the five year window has passed; and for these reasons, MDNR is not requiring this facility to undergo a BART analysis, which could require the source to install BART controls. As we discussed on that phone call, we believe that as long as this facility holds a valid air qual ity permit allowing it to operate, the Draft SIP needs to explicitly address the potential scenario that Doe Run-Glover might resume operation under that permit. This could be phrased as an affirmative statement that

1 BART-eligible sources are those sources that have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing air pollutant, were put in place or under construction be tween August 7, 1962 and Au gust 7, 1977, and whose operations fall within one or more of 26 specifically listed source categories. Under CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A), BART is required for any BART-eligible source which “em its any air pollutant that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any such area.”

3the facility would be re quired to provide a BART analysis a nd install controls by a date that is no later than the date that w ould have been required had the f acility not been in this “care and maintenance” status.

8. In discussing the disposition of BART-eligible units, secti on 9.2 of the Draft SIP provides three reasons that “the State of Missouri did not ev aluate emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and ammonia in BART dete rminations....” These reasons provided are insufficient to draw a conclusion that VOCs and ammonia are not signific ant. In addition, as noted above, the third statement is contradi cted in earlier chap ters. Please expand on MDNR’s reasons for excluding VOC and ammonia units from BART.

9. Table 9.3 of the Draft SIP presents the CA LPUFF/CALPOST screen ing results for the BART-eligible units. The section above indicate s that the modeling inpu t files used for these analyses are provided in Appendi x H. Please also specify within the text of the Draft SIP whether these screening analyses followed the CENRAP 2 screening modeling protocol, and if not, MDNR’s reasoning for deviating from the agreed-upon approach of its regional planning group.

10. Between Table 9.3 and Table 9.4, the Draft SIP discusses that it also evaluated the “likelihood that the impact from the BA RT eligible sources would cause the 7 th high visibility impact (98 thpercentile) in any given year to exceed the contribution threshold.” There are two issues related to this approach. First, it is inappr opriate to apply the 98 th percentile test to modeling resu lts per CENRAP’s screening prot ocol. It is unclear whether MDNR refined the meteorology processing done in the modeling in order to move from screening to refined modeling, which would then allow for use of the 98 thpercentile approach. Second, in applying the 98 th percentile, we look to the eighth-highest daily visibility impact predicted in a modeling ye ar, skipping over the first seven values. The Draft SIP text indicates that MDNR wa s looking at the seventh-highest value.

11. Near the end of the BART s ection, the Draft SIP contains the statement that, “Appendix I contains more detailed results of the sc reen-modeling analyses for each BART-eligible facility. Upon approval by the State of Missouri, the refine d analyses submitted by Noranda Aluminum and the University of Missouri-Columb ia, will be provided as an Appendix to this document.” Please provide information regard ing these two sources, including any modeling protocols for the refined analyses, modeling re sults, and BART engineering determinations, as they become available.

12. Within the BART section, there are inconsis tent statements about the BART decisions pertaining to electric utility ge nerating units that are also subject to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR EGU sources). On page 44, the Draft SIP indicates that CAIR EGU sources were, “modeled collectively using all BART-elig ible sources for only the PM impacts on the applicable Class I areas.” However, the discussion on page 49 says that, “CAIR EGU sources are not required to install, oper ate, and maintain BART,” because of the

2 Central Regional Air Planning Association CENRAP is an organization of states, tribes, federal agencies and other interested parties that identifies regional haze and visibility issues and develops strategies to address them. CENRAP is one of the five Regional Planning Organizations RPOs ac ross the U.S. and includes th e states and tribal areas of Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana.

4Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) finding that “as a whol e, the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) cap-and-trade program improves vi sibility more than implementing BART in States affected by CAIR.” This EPA finding only applies for emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and nitrogen oxides (NO X ). Please provide additional information about how CAIR EGU sources were evaluated for primary par ticulate matter and primary sulfate emissions.

13. The bulk of the information in Draft SIP Appe ndices G and I is in hard-copy renditions of spreadsheets that extend over multiple pages for each row, and require hundreds of pages to present the entire document. We r ecognize that this type of info rmation is difficult to present in a paper document format. But for the ease of a reader being able to track rows across tables and the meaning of information in the columns, we recommend that MDNR reformat the table printouts to include row numbers at the right and/or left on each printed page (so that a reader can follow the information for a given entry across the multiple horizontal pages needed to show all the columns of the spread sheet), and also include the column headers on each page of the printout (which currently only appear at the top of the first page above row one). It would also helpful to have the softwa re add page numbers for these printouts of the spreadsheets to help a reader stay organizedas to his/her location within the document.

Area of Influence

14. The Consultation Plan that is included as A ppendix F to the Draft SIP contains several Area of Influence (AOI) maps for the affected Class I areas in and near Missouri. However, these studies, concepts, and graphics are not presen ted in the Draft SIP te xt. They should be integral to the discussions of attribution of regional haze causing pollution, identification of reasonable progress goals, and development of long term strategies for this Regional Haze Plan.

Section 11.5 of the Draft SIP responds to the Regional Haze Rule requirement for “Missouri to identify all anthropoge nic sources of visibility impairme nt considered by the State in developing its long-term strategy,” by referencing back to Tabl es 7.1 and 7.2 of the Emission Inventory section. However, those two tables present only the 2002 and 2018 emissions inventory summary for just the State of Mi ssouri sources, and then only in aggregate by source category.

In contrast, CENRAP conducted extensive Area of Influence analysis, and produced graphic representations for each of the Class I area s within and near to the CENRAP region. However, the Draft SIP does not provide any of these graphics for the local Class I areas of concern, nor does it discuss any of the wo rk or results from those analyses.

As an example, the data contained within both the Draft CENRAP TSD and MDNR’s Consultation Plan (appendices E and F to the Dr aft SIP, respectively), i ndicates that the areas of influence that affect the Missouri and Arkansas Class I areas extend across several surrounding States. In fact, the CENRAP “P SAT” source apportionment modeling results for the Mingo Class I area, show that emissions from elevated point sources from Illinois and Indiana are second and third behind Missouri area sources in contribution to the 2018 projected 20% worst vi sibility days. In addition, both these neighbori ng States’ point source contributions are more significant than Missouri’ s own elevated point sources (see figure E57c in that CENRAP TSD Appendix E). The Dr aft SIP needs to discuss the attribution of haze-cause pollution and the resu lts of MDNR’s consultations with neighboring States regarding achieving Reasonable Progress Goals at the Mingo and Hercules Glades Class I

areas.
Reasonable Progress Goals: Long Term Strategy

15. Section 10 of the Draft SIP presents Missour i’s Reasonable Progress Goals. During our conference call with MDNR on September 25, 2007, th e State clarified thatits approach here was to establish its reasonable progress goals to be equal to the 2018 year value of the uniform rate of progress graph. This is in consistent with the Regional Haze Rule, which says: “The State may not adopt a reasonable progress goal that repres ents less visibility improvement than is expected to result from implementation of other requirements of the CAA during the applicable pl anning period.” (See 40 CFR 51 .308(d)(1)(B)(vi).) It’s our understanding that the 2018 visi bility projections presented in section 8.4 were based upon, “emission growth” and “on the books ” controls, which are State and Federal controls that will be implemented between the 2002 base year and the 2018 future year.” (Draft SIP, page 34.) As such, the rule requires that Missouri adopt the results of this visibility projection as its 2018 Reasonable Progress Goal.

16. The Regional Haze Rule also requires that Stat es establish Reasonable Progress Goals for the Best 20% days, based upon projected emission reductions for the future planning year. Neither section 10 nor any other area of the Draft SIP addresse s the goals for the Best 20% days.

17. At the beginning of Section 10 of the Draft SI P, MDNR outlines the four statutory factors that each State must consider in setting its Reasonable Progress Goals. These factors are intended to be applied holistically, across all contributing sources of visibility impairing pollutants, to inform the decision being made by the State. However, it appears from the remaining discussion within this section th at MDNR is only applying this “four-factor analysis” to the CAIR-affectedand BART-affected sources wi thin Missouri. This is a misinterpretation of the EPA guidance quoted on page 53 of the Draft SIP – it says that the four-factor analysis doesn’t need to “reassess the reasonable progress factors for sources subject to BART for which you have already completed a BART analysis,” (which would include CAIR sources where CAIR is deemed to be equal to BART). That guidance does not say that these are the only pollution sources that the four-factor analysis should consider, but rather that for such sources, additional cons ideration beyond CAIR and BART is not needed as part of the four-factor anal ysis. In effect, therefore, the Draft SIP essentially does not include the required four-factor analysis fo r establishing the Reasonable Progress Goals.

18. Section 11 of the Draft SIP presents the L ong Term Strategy. Sec tion 11.4 inaccurately refers to the regional haze pro cess as an attainment demonstra tion. As described above, the Regional Haze Rule does not set absolute levels to be achieved at th e ten-year planning intervals, but rather provides a framework for each State to establish those Reasonable Progress Goals based upon the statutory four-factor analysis.

619. In Section 11.6.4, the Draft SIP discusses how it will manage retirement and replacement of stationary sources, and refere nces existing State and Tribal “requirements pertaining to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD ) and New Source Review (NSR).” Please elaborate on how the PSD and NSR permitting progr ams will be utilized by MDNR as part of its Long Term Strategy for mee ting Reasonable Progress Goals.

Fire

20. As discussed above, the Draft SIP lacks inform ation regarding the cau ses of haze at the Mingo Class I area, as well as a full explanati on of the projected changes and reasons for those changes leading towards the 2018 planning year.

In the context of wild and pres cribed fire, the State should cons ider and describe how natural and non-natural smoke emissions currently affect the Class I areas and how these effects may change during the planning period given the St ate’s future burning projections and the implementation of the Smoke Management Plan (SMP).

21. The Draft SIP and the Missouri SMP should id entify Mingo as a smoke sensitive area and prescribed burners should be required to apply the appropriate smoke management techniques to minimize smoke impacts.

22. We recommend that MDNR refer to the Missour i SMP in a way that does not require SIP updates each time the SMP is updated. Also, please indicate whether Missouri intends to “certify” its SMP as provided for by the 1998 EPA Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fire.

23. Section 4.0 of the Draft SIP commit s that: “Missouri will conti nue to coordinate and consult with the FLMs during the development of future progress reports and plan revisions, as well as during the implementation of programs having the potential to contribute to visibility impairment in the mandatory Class I areas. The FLMs will be consulted in the following instances...Development and implementation of other programs that may contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.” The Missouri SMP, as cited through section 11.6.5 of the Draft SIP, is one of these “other programs” that would be monitored and updated during the implementation of this Regional Haze SIP, including consultation with the FLM agencies in that process. We note, however, that neither the later section nor the Missouri SMP itself address ongoing development, revi ew, and updating of the plan, nor do they provide for FLM agency involvement.

Regional Consistency

24. Missouri is situated geographically at th e boundary between three multi-state Regional Planning Organizations (RPO): CENRAP r unning along the west of the Mississippi River from Minnesota south to Texas and Louisian a; VISTAS, comprised of the southeastern United States, and MWRPO, from the Ohio River Valley north through the Great Lakes region. As a member State of the CENRAP or ganization, Missouri has utilized the technical products that were produced by the CENRAP e fforts as the information upon which it has built its Regional Haze SIP. The VISTAS a nd MWRPO technical work also cover the Mingo Wilderness Area, as several of their western member States may have emission

7sources that influence visibil ity at Mingo. The results indica ted by each of the three regional planning organizations are differe nt. While it is fully appropr iate for Missouri to rely upon the CENRAP work, MDNR might consider highlighting the importance of the ongoing verification and contingency pr ovisions in view of the vary ing results of the RPOs.

Verification & Contingencies

25. Section 6.3 of the Draft SIP discusses the ongoing and future monitoring strategy for measuring visibility parameters and progress at the Class I areas within Missouri. MDNR specifies that, “the existing IMPROVE and IM PROVE Protocol sites will be maintained contingent upon continued national funding.” Pl ease note that the State has a responsibility to conduct monitoring and assessment as part of an ongoing progress review towards the goals set in this SIP, as well as for informing future SIP revision and planning activities required under the national Regional Haze Rule. Given the uncertain future of any individual monitoring site, the SIP should a ddress the representativeness of both primary and alternative data sites, and also provide a more specific plan for ensuring th at monitoring is continued if national funding is not available.

26. We encourage MDNR to not only consider the need for these monitoring data to measure progress, but also how the plan accounts for and reconciles both unexpected and reasonably foreseeable emissions growth, changes to th e geographic distribution of emissions, and substantive discrepancies that may be found in emission inventories or other technical bases of the SIP. As an example, the predictions of the “IPM” model and the assumptions for CAIR implementation that were used to project the future 2018 electric utility generation industry sources and emissions may be greatly di fferent from the outcomes that are actually realized in that future year. Such factors, as well as other unanticip ated circumstances, may adversely affect Missouri’s ability to achieve the emissions reductions projected by the SIP. Considering these factors through adaptive mana gement or routine review processes may assist in mitigating these circumstances.

27. Section 13 of the Draft SIP discusses the opti ons for action following the five-year review, basically quoting the provisions of 40 CF R 51.308(h). However, the document does not provide any criteria that MDNR will use in eval uating the five-year progress report to decide which of the listed actions would be indicated. Please include discussi on of the anticipated criteria that MDNR will use to both evaluate the progress at the five-year review and to select the course of action that will be taken based upon that review.

Coordination & Consultation

28. The Draft SIP references to its Appendix F for documentation of the consultation process that Missouri and Arkansas jointly conducted for th e four Class I areas in their two States. Appendix F contains the consulta tion plan that was presented. Additionally, Appendix K of the Draft SIP contains the minutes from the thre e consultation meeting conference calls held in April, May, and June, 2007. However, th e Draft SIP lacks disc ussion of Missouri’s decisions based upon the results of those meetings.

829. Section 2.6 of the plan says that “Consu ltation between the States and the FLMs will continue as the federal regional haze program pr ogresses. The consultation will continue via participation in CENRAP. This effort will include five-year progress reports and development and review of any SIP revisions deemed necessary. It will also provide for consideration of any other pr ograms that are implemented and have the potential to contribute to impairment of visibi lity in Class I areas.” We are encouraged that Missouri will continue the dialogue and progr ess towards Regional Haze goals. However, the statement above relies upon the continued ex istence of the CENRAP organi zation. Since the future of the Regional Planning Organizati ons as a whole is uncertain, the SIP should outline how Missouri would accomplish future ongoing cons ultation activities ab sent the CENRAP organization.

In addition, the Draft SIP references future c onsultation activities in many places, but several of those omit the FLM agencies as a partner in that consultation. The Draft SIP should be consistent in addressing this topic. (See also, Draft SIP sections 2.6, 4.0, and all of section 12.)

9